Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi sch
Well sure good behavior goes a long way.
Can you explain Exemplary to us??
thanks ljb

Thought for a sec I spelled it wrong and screwed up. If he has a really good record. or example, if he earned battle ribbons like a bronze star, good
conduct medal, and had above average fitreps (fitness reports). I have no idea what his record is like, but after ten years of sevice I'm guessing he
had multiple deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan so plenty of time for "heroics." If he can mount a formal appeal that includes testimony from
his commanding officers, both non-coms and commissioned, it might help.

Probably a lost cause. He screwed up--no doubt about it vis a vis the UCMJ, but I kind of feel sorry for him as he was a career Marine.

Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: "I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

since he hasn't disobeyed any orders, and had later clarified that he meant unlawful orders, i don't see how this is legal, but so few things are
these days.

he'll be kicked out and left with nothing as an example, even though he never did anything wrong.

Originally posted by 200Plus
From day one in the military they tell you " you defend the constitution, you are not defended by it". A soldier sacrifices his constitutional
rights and gains the rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Do you understand the concept of "natural rights" our nation is founded on? There are rights which all people have....these rights cannot be
denied by a king, a president, a contract, or any agreement. I have not read anywhere in our Constitution that "certain rights" don't apply to
soldiers. Seems quite the contrary. If I am wrong someone can educate me.

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: "I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

since he hasn't disobeyed any orders, and had later clarified that he meant unlawful orders, i don't see how this is legal, but so few things are
these days.

he'll be kicked out and left with nothing as an example, even though he never did anything wrong.

Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: "I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

since he hasn't disobeyed any orders, and had later clarified that he meant unlawful orders, i don't see how this is legal, but so few things are
these days.

he'll be kicked out and left with nothing as an example, even though he never did anything wrong.

Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath: "I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

since he hasn't disobeyed any orders, and had later clarified that he meant unlawful orders, i don't see how this is legal, but so few things are
these days.

he'll be kicked out and left with nothing as an example, even though he never did anything wrong.

You don't have "rights" in the military the way we do as civilians. It's a whole different world entirely. It's ironic that while in the military,
"fighting for" and/or protecting American freedoms - you actually don't have those freedoms yourself.

Example: One man in the barracks pulls a nasty prank on another man. The ENTIRE barrack (all 40 men) are 'punished' until the guilty person comes
forward.

Now, in civilian life, there's no way they'd punish everybody in an apartment complex because of the actions of one apartment resident.

The military is like an island within the US. They have their own military justice system and you can actually be tried TWICE for a crime you commit
as a soldier in a civilian area.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
But kill a boatload of "rag-heads" and be given a medal...

Or maybe be driving along with medical supplies and get hit by an IED and save your fellow Marines from certain death. If you care to read the
citations for Medal of Honor recipients, for example, you will find almost always that they got people out of a bad situation and saved lives. They
did not get a medal for simply blowing people up. They get it for putting themselves in harm's way when they didn't really have to.

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

Indeed, it does...however you do realise that all of the federal government's powers are limited by every single amendment in the bill of
Rights, don't you? No where is there an exception listed to our rights... only limits on government authority.

Also a quick definition of Natural Rights...so you know where my stance is coming from.

Natural Rights: rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and
inalienable.

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

Indeed, it does...however you do realise that all of the federal government's powers are limited by every single amendment in the bill of
Rights, don't you? No where is there an exception listed to our rights... only limits on government authority.

Also a quick definition of Natural Rights...so you know where my stance is coming from.

Natural Rights: rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and
inalienable.

I get where you're coming from. I don't agree entirely with the UCMJ, but the fact is they're allowed to regulate, and that's what the UCMJ is.
Regulations. You're government property. You choose to sign up. You agree to their rules when you put your signature on those dotted lines.

All he is getting is an OTH discharge. No benefits isn't automatic with that discharge. It's up to the VA whether or not he will receive them. It's
basically just "you're fired." It's an Administrative discharge and not a Punitive one, luckily.

The biggest setback or hurdle to a soldiers rights are actually covered in AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy), followed by the punitive articles of the
UCMJ.

"Conduct unbecoming" was just the tip of the iceburg here, you have to look at provacative speach and gesture, disrespect to a senior officer
(commander in chief), verbal assault to a senior, disobeying a direct order, gross misconduct.......... the list is endless. He actually posted
"screw Obama, I won't follow his orders" then when he was called on it he said "his unlawful orders".

As far as those rights I was questioned on, I think Robert Heinlein said it best:

"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the
Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save
his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is
'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives.
Liberty is always unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it is always vanquished. Of all the so-called 'natural
human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?- the 'pursuit of
happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore.
Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives - but neither gods nor
saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.